The content of your recent report on the Channel 4 video screened in Capitol Hill is disappointing. Your reporter uncritically endorsed the line purveyed by the organisers of the event without so much as a passing reference to the counter views advanced by my office at the screening of this video in New York or an effort to contact the Sri Lankan authorities. Not very professional!

The Ch 4 video makes serious allegations of human rights violations and war crimes against the Sri Lankan authorities. Let me assure you that Sri Lanka has always been strongly committed to the advancement of human rights, both domestically and internationally and compliance with accepted standards is important to it.

Sri Lanka was an early party to 7 key human rights treaties and the Geneva protocols, while some of those pointing fingers at Sri Lanka still remain outside some of these regimes. President Rajapaksa himself developed his political career as a Human Rights activist and led delegations to Geneva to advocate human rights causes. A number of special representatives of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have visited Sri Lanka on invitation. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Navi Pillay, has been invited to Sri Lanka and will undertake a visit in 2012.

The Ch 4 video and its sponsors patronisingly suggest that the events close to the end of the conflict must be investigated through an external entity, specifically to prevent Sri Lanka becoming a model in similar conflict situations. Sri Lanka prides itself on being governed by the rule of law and is influenced by a long and well established legal tradition and is fully capable of dealing with any infractions of accepted standards on its own. It entertains no burning ambition of being a model to anyone else. It has persistently endeavoured to subscribe to global standards.

For example, following complaints about breaches of the UN code of conduct by some of its troops in Haiti, 110 were recalled immediately and investigated and many were punished. In this regard the UN itself holds Sri Lanka as a model to other troop contributors.

For any matter to be taken before the judicial system in Sri Lanka, like in other similar countries, credible evidence is required. Unsubstantiated allegations, convenient insinuations and videos of doubtful authenticity can not be the basis of judicial action.

In any event, Sri Lanka has acted much faster in establishing its own domestic mechanism, the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), with a mandate which would encompass accountability issues, than Western countries who have confronted similar situations.

Sri Lanka contends that the Channel-4 video, and the Darusman Report, were seriously flawed and were replete with serious inaccuracies, relied on unsubstantiated allegations, suspect (doctored?) footage, and simplistic interpretations, some of it clearly taken from the Tamil Net, the propaganda arm of the LTTE.

While capable of arousing humanitarian passions and rekindling ethnic divisions, it was highly doubtful that the Channel-4 footage offered the kind of credible evidence that would stand scrutiny before the courts.

Equally importantly, given the country’s limited resources (Sri Lanka is, after all, a poor developing country emerging from 27 years of conflict) and the urgency of addressing other pressing issues, it was simply wrong and unethical to pile up pressure only in one area.

These included providing urgent humanitarian assistance to the IDPs, (food, clothing, shelter, medical care etc.), returning IDPs to their villages and homes, many of which were in a dilapidated condition, rehabilitating former child soldiers and adult cadres, clearing land mines, restoring damaged infrastructure, and ensuring the uninterrupted provision of basic services (schools, clinics, extension services) to facilitate the speedy return to normalcy.

Many of these challenges have been addressed with remarkable speed and at significant cost. As a responsible democracy and a caring administration, prioritisation was essential. Accountability issues are also being addressed through a domestic process, the LLRC, which has the mandate to deal with infractions of domestic and international standards. It was Sri Lanka’s sovereign responsibility to address such issues itself in the first instance.

The UN SG and the international community have acknowledged this. A Special Unit has been established in the Attorney General’s Department for the purpose of investigating matters referred to it by the LLRC.

What the LLRC, needed now was time and space and internal stability to deal with these issues, not relentless and undue external pressure. The country and the people were going through a healing process and there was widespread domestic resentment of perverse external prescriptions.

The questionable nature of the Channel-4 footage is highlighted by many a frame revealing what were clearly enacted scenes filmed for propaganda purposes. For example, the images of the crowds at the gate of the UN Office in Killinochchi, described with such gut wrenching eloquence by John Snow, appeared to be from two different films; the girl with sad eyes seems to be wearing a LTTE neck scarf; the blade used in the alleged killing of the tied Tamil combatant did not have any blood on it; the title of the video “Killing Fields” has been plagiarised from John Pilger’s 1970’s documentary on the Khemer Rouge and used for its emotion provoking effect; the scenes of terrified civilians fleeing an alleged aerial bombardment, in the original LTTE footage contained camera persons and smiling onlookers; the shells that allegedly landed among the IDP tents somehow left the flimsy tents unscathed; the original of the execution video had people speaking in Tamil.

Organisations such as Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Crisis Group (ICG) which essentially depend on public contributions, place their credibility at risk by endorsing dubious and propagandist material manufactured from suspect sources and by manipulating evidence.

Sri Lanka valued the honour of its security forces, it did not wish to see its security forces which numbered over 200,000 honest and decent men and women and who fought a brutal terrorist group bravely and at immense cost in lives to achieve peace impugned in this manner.

Judging by the vigour of the Channel 4 campaign and actions of its co-sponsors, the over riding aim appears to be to discredit Sri Lanka. This was also a goal consistent with the aims of the rump LTTE.

Sri Lanka had not intended to end the conflict through military means but was compelled to do so after being rebuffed repeatedly in its efforts to negotiate a peaceful end to the conflict. While Sri Lankan delegations had attended negotiations three times in 2006, the LTTE had persisted with a relentless terrorist offensive.

Certain developed countries, despite being better resourced, had taken much longer to address alleged infractions of international standards. Sri Lanka, with its limited resources, was now being relentlessly pressured to do the same things much quicker compared with others despite having to address a much more complex range of issues.

The LLRC will conclude its work in accordance with its mandate but Sri Lanka needed space and time to deal with these issues. AI and the other INGOs are invited to stay engaged in an open and honest dialogue with Sri Lanka.

One would have thought that AI would want to advocate change for the better rather than engage in an all holds barred vendetta.

The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Cancun, Mexico last month, ended with some hope, much frustration and considerable visible disappointment. A process that could be traced back to the Stockholm Conference in 1972, and which reached enthusiastic heights in Rio in 1992, continues its laboured progress.

Although ambition had been diluted considerably in the lead up Cancun, in contrast to Copenhagen in 2009, there were still some who had hoped for an ambitious legal agreement that would be the spring-board from which to aggressively address the threat of climate change for the sake of future generations.

Now with those expectations largely unrealized, the world will look to COP 17 in Durban, South Africa in 2011 for the process to move to the next level. The outcome at Cancun, could be said to be consistent with the moderate expectations of those who managed the Conference. Sadly, in international processes, it must be remembered that progress is measured in halting baby steps rather than in exuberant leaps.

Important amongst the outcomes, was the clear affirmation by the parties that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and that all parties share a vision for long term cooperative action in order to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (the Convention) including through the achievement of a global goal on the basis of equity and in accordance with common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

One of the useful outcomes of Cancun was the agreement to establish a Green Climate Fund to finance measures undertaken by developing countries to address this “greatest of challenges of our time”. This was a significant development, as up to now, there had been no agreement on a viable fund to facilitate actions to deal with the challenges faced by developing countries in confronting the threat of climate change.

Developed country parties to the UNFCCC agreed to allocate 100 billion dollars per year to this fund by 2020 (Only 30 billion dollars will be made available for the period 2010-2012). By overwhelming agreement, this fund will be managed by a Trustee, which for the time being will be the World Bank. Given the enormity of the problem, it has been asked whether this sum would be adequate for the purpose, particularly since it will be balanced between adaptation and mitigation, with funds for adaptation being prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries.

The most vulnerable countries are identified as Small Island Developing States and Least Developed countries and they constitute almost one third of the membership of the United Nations. The 100 billion Fund will thus serve two categories. Importantly, the adaptation needs of many developing countries, not falling within the most vulnerable category, and whose situation may be as precarious, may not be met by it.

Furthermore, some of them may be seeking to develop using the model followed by those developed countries that were most responsible for global warming. The yearning among the people in developing countries to imitate and acquire the creature comforts existing in the West (motor cars, air conditioning, heating, consumer disposables, etc.) is irrepressible.

It will be a serious mistake, as we seek to address the threat of climate change, not to give adequate consideration to the soaring, but potentially environmentally negative, aspirations of such developing countries also. The funds necessary to meet the requirements of the developing world must be addressed squarely if the threat of climate change is to be properly addressed.

It is a threat that respects no geographical borders. In comparison, we recall that when the global financial crisis threatened, the US alone very quickly mobilized US$ 700 billion dollars to fund a rescue package. Europe raised similar amounts, and continues to do so to rescue ailing members of the Union. Does this suggest that the threat of climate change is less of a worry? a preponderance of scientists would disagree.

The need for technology transfer was also acknowledged at Cancun. Technology transfer was recognized as an important tool in the rapid reduction of emissions and in the urgent need to adapt to the adverse impact of the climate change. Although perfect technologies might still evade us, what the world possesses today, if deployed strategically and widely, could contributes significantly to reduce GHG emissions that cause global warming.

Unfortunately, most of this technology is with developed countries, private corporations and is costly. Unless effective mechanisms are developed to facilitate technology transfer, the developing economies could render nugatory all efforts to address the threat of climate change.

We must get away from simple rhetoric. Although many had hoped for binding legal commitments with regard to emissions reduction, what ensued, to the disappointment of a large section of the participants, was a voluntary system. Countries would pledge reduction targets and voluntarily report measures they have taken to reduce emissions, as well as the success that they have achieved.

While the Cancun voluntary system would facilitate certain countries to make commitments without having to confront domestic legislative hurdles, it would be difficult to police. A voluntary system would also be more at the mercy of domestic legislatures. Nevertheless, such a system could provide the moral imperative for such countries to adopt helpful measures, such as developing motor car engines that consume less fossil fuels, etc.

Domestic pressure groups would begin to assume a significantly enhanced role in this context, both positive and negative. The tendency to engage in destructive legal arguments, including to stifle efforts of competitors to encourage environmentally helpful technological developments (e.g. wind turbines in China) may increase. The voluntary system adopted here has other precedents in the international arena.

The Montreal Protocol successfully achieved the almost total elimination of the use of ozone depleting substances through a voluntary system coupled with a proactive secretariat that provided assistance and the incentives of financial assistance (for funding “incremental costs”) and technology transfers. Whether one could rely on a purely voluntary system with regard to a threat as vast as climate change is a challenging question.

Furthermore, developing countries who become party to the system will now be obliged to comply every two years through measurement, reporting and verification and international consultation and analysis mechanisms.

In this respect one notes that there is already a considerable burden on countries, specifically on developing countries, with reporting obligations under numerous conventions. Even many developed countries have complained vociferously about their reporting obligations under multilateral agreements and have sought to rationalize their reporting obligations.

The burden being imposed on developing countries could be far too onerous and they may require substantial assistance if they are to comply with this requirement. If not, the system could simply become inoperable.

A voluntary system may work better if the area of application is limited (e.g. as in the case of ozone depleting substances) and financial assistance, technology transfer and technical assistance is tied to the deal.

The sources of funding for the mechanism that emerged from Cancun remains vague. “Funding provided to developing country parties may come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources.” The world is only too aware of pledges made before the flashlights of media cameras in response to natural calamities which remain to be honoured many years later. It would be important to ensure that any pledge made is specific and not subject to conditionality.

Climate change related action should not be held hostage to political considerations. Additional funds may be sought from a variety of sources. For example, it may be possible to encourage multilateral financial institutions also to contribute to the Fund, again without additional conditionality. The same parties which made the commitments at Cancun are also party to those multilateral financial institutions. Private charities, some of whom have recently attracted banner headlines with their massive contributions to worthy causes, may be encouraged to help the Fund. Their interest needs to be excited.

Major corporations may be another sector that could be mobilized. The concept of corporate social responsibility which is now well established (and is taught in business schools) could be the window through which the support of corporations could be attracted. Many could contribute with funds or with services.

There needs to be imaginative outreach. Countries themselves, in particular, developing countries could be encouraged to allocate a certain percentage of their budgets to climate change related activity, perhaps on the basis of matching funds from other sources. There are clear economic, social and electoral advantages in this. Communities could be encouraged to enhance their own contributions. It was one man’s effort to clean up Australia, Ian Kiernan, that is now being emulated around the world.

All this needs dynamic and imaginative leadership. The UN with its many agencies, UNEP, UNDP, Climate Change Secretariat, Biological Diversity Secretariat, Basel Convention Secretariat, Ozone Secretariat, Global Partnerships, etc, etc, is the only organization (with some rationalisation) that is equipped to provide this global leadership.

(**Dr Palitha Kohona is Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and a former Chief of the U.N. Treaty Section)